|
|
| Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade (75553) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
|
| (77013) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 22 05:38:19 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Broadway Junction on Thu Apr 21 23:05:46 2005. Well things certainly have changed! |
|
|
| (77173) | |
Division Series |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Fri Apr 22 13:43:48 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 21 10:23:20 2005. Officially, there is no BMT, IRT or IND (just A, B1 and B2). Those are irrelevant to the riding public.I don't agree. The front and rear of every underground subway station has a overhead red sign for emergency personnel pointing out the next emergency exit, direction of train travel and what division of the system you're in - and the division is represented by the familiar IRT, BMT and IND. --Mark |
|
|
| (77181) | |
Re: Division Series |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 22 13:58:01 2005, in response to Division Series, posted by Mark S. Feinman on Fri Apr 22 13:43:48 2005. Ask the average 20 yo on any train if they know what division their home station belongs to. You'll probably get a lot of "duhs". |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (77268) | |
Re: Division Series |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 22 15:49:11 2005, in response to Re: Division Series, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Apr 22 13:58:01 2005. Ask your average 40 year old or younger on any train if they know what division their home station belongs to. You'll get about the same amount of "duhs". |
|
|
| (77294) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Fri Apr 22 16:14:18 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Apr 21 09:35:33 2005. Did any of the chometz get 12-9ed? If so, did any subway rats eat the resulting pancakes? |
|
|
| (77301) | |
Re: Division Series |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Fri Apr 22 16:22:49 2005, in response to Division Series, posted by Mark S. Feinman on Fri Apr 22 13:43:48 2005. Take a run over to 49 St/B'way. This station was/is BMT, broadcasts on the B1 frequency and yet is identified on those emergency signs as being IND. |
|
|
| (77704) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Series on Sat Apr 23 18:00:01 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Eric B on Thu Apr 21 17:06:12 2005. Side question, are you the same Eric B that manages that Route-by-Route page?I'll take your word for it. I'll correct the caption. |
|
|
| (77719) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Sat Apr 23 20:03:19 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by JohnL on Tue Apr 19 08:08:32 2005. We have a nice big clock at the Frankford Transportation Center in Philly, on the outside east-facing wall. It looks good and it's appreciated by all. I'm a firm believer in public clocks, also. |
|
|
| (77787) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Apr 24 01:02:31 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by TransitChuckG on Sat Apr 23 20:03:19 2005. Count me in on that! |
|
|
| (77977) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 15:47:56 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Rapid Transit Series on Sat Apr 23 18:00:01 2005. Yes.And that was our little crew room and the TSS and Supt. office when the West End was the sole line there, and the rest of the complex was a hole in the ground. The bottom portion that has no walls was the locker room and men's room. I had heard they were now going to rebuild and use it as something else, and when working the F and Q; I could see the new staircase (that goes right down toward the latform); replacing the old rickety fire escape style one that was there before (which went along the side of the building). |
|
|
| (77981) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 15:54:05 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Alex L. on Thu Apr 21 12:38:27 2005. [bump]Different Ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
| (77982) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 15:55:31 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Alex L. on Wed Apr 20 14:55:06 2005. [bump]Different Ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
| (77983) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 15:56:13 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 21 10:40:18 2005. [bump]Different Ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
| (77984) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 15:57:12 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 15:36:39 2005. [bump]Different Ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
| (77985) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 15:58:10 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 21 10:44:04 2005. [bump]Different Ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
| (77987) | |
Re: Division Series |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 16:00:19 2005, in response to Division Series, posted by Mark S. Feinman on Fri Apr 22 13:43:48 2005. [bump]Different Ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
| (77990) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 16:01:16 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 21 10:24:39 2005. [bump]Different Ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
| (77991) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 16:01:44 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 15:38:17 2005. [bump]Different Ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
| (78049) | |
What was the point of this exercise? (wasRe: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade) |
|
|
Posted by willD on Sun Apr 24 17:29:04 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 16:01:44 2005. Why exactly did you feel the need to spam the board like this? Why do we need to be bombarded with a link to thread? |
|
|
| (78121) | |
Re: What was the point of this exercise? (wasRe: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade) |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 20:36:40 2005, in response to What was the point of this exercise? (wasRe: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade), posted by willD on Sun Apr 24 17:29:04 2005. Sorry.But the thread had all of a sudden died (almost); and what I had said answered the debate on several of the branches. I do not know how others read the threads; so those on the other branches may not have seen my response if they didn't see the whole thread again. So instead of posting the whole thing over and over; I added links to it. |
|
|
| (78129) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 24 21:06:22 2005, in response to Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by Eric B on Thu Apr 21 18:11:10 2005. Wow this is an interesting post.After reading all this, I do believe we can truly call the Culver F line an IND line, just as we do for the Liberty El. Both began life as BMT lines, but were completely converted, right down to IND signaling (regardless of the radio settings). |
|
|
| (78140) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Series on Sun Apr 24 21:35:10 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 15:47:56 2005. Thanks! Can I use your description in the photo? I'll credit you, of course. |
|
|
| (78155) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 24 22:17:17 2005, in response to Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 24 21:06:22 2005. But the Liberty Avenue Line is still BMT-K, while the radio frequency is IND. As to "IND signalling," all they did was alter the chaining; there was no anomoly of signal aspects or practice, as there was with IND-style signalling on the IRT Dyre Avenue Line. The whole IND Culver thing was weird, anyway. They felt that they had to physically separate the Culver from the BMT (except at Stillwell Avenue, where they would have had to stub-end the tracks) for no obvious reason. The BMT was severed at Ditmas Avenue, despite the installation of a structural connection, and the Brighton Local tracks were severed at W8. |
|
|
| (78162) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 24 22:21:55 2005, in response to Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by Eric B on Thu Apr 21 18:11:10 2005. "However; the radio channel remained BMT. (it would have to change over somewhere anyway, so why bother changing the line for several stations?)"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's an anachronism. There was no radio channel in 1954-the towers knew who you were by marker lights or punching and you got out and used a wayside telephone if you had to yack. When the radio channels were established, the Culver was put on the BMT channel and dispatch. |
|
|
| (78178) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Apr 24 22:40:26 2005, in response to Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 24 22:17:17 2005. It would have made little to no sense to retain the LL tracks at W8. It was a flat junction.(I have no idea whose photo this is.) 
|
|
|
| (78197) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 24 23:07:11 2005, in response to Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Apr 24 22:40:26 2005. Why not? It was an issue of operating flexibility. Flat junctions were more common then. The Sea Beach and West End north of Coney Island Crick were a flat junction at the time. They also severed G track in Coney from the Culver, though I'm not certain if that might have been pre-1954. |
|
|
| (78198) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Apr 24 23:08:41 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 20 15:32:58 2005. Today, the culver it BMT until just north of church ave station. |
|
|
| (78206) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Apr 24 23:14:29 2005, in response to Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 24 23:07:11 2005. Even if it had been retained, when would it ever have been used? and by now it would be abandoned anyway-the same way Sneidker and Nassau went.(BTW, H track was also connected to the Culver - in fact I believe all eight tracks were through tracks initially.) |
|
|
| (78213) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 24 23:28:49 2005, in response to Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Apr 24 23:14:29 2005. H track was connected originally, but it was severed by the time of (because of?) the passageway to the Norton's Point trolley built in 1924. |
|
|
| (78255) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by tonyIND on Mon Apr 25 02:13:31 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 21 10:38:45 2005. On the old roll signs, there was a "KK Nassau Local" sign. I guess that was meant to be a line similar to what the 1967-68 "JJ" line was??? Then I recall a green "MM" sign that I think was planned to be what the KK eventually became. Tony |
|
|
| (78322) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Apr 25 12:19:41 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Apr 21 10:44:04 2005. AFAIK the KK was to be the letter designation of the old #14 Broadway-Brooklyn local. In a way it was when it was introduced in 1968. |
|
|
| (78462) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Apr 25 18:46:20 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Rapid Transit Series on Sun Apr 24 21:35:10 2005. Sure! ☺ |
|
|
| (78470) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Apr 25 18:54:33 2005, in response to Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by SLRT on Sun Apr 24 22:21:55 2005. Well when did radios begin to be used? Perhaps it is connected to the Control Center track indication panels; which once again divide the system between three desks. It probably then follows the wayside phone system; which also is divided between the three systems. Now that was the remote communication system before radios; so it existed back then. Perhaps they didn't want to bother changing the phone lines to IND to match the radio (when it would cross over enventually anyway); so kept it all as BMT. |
|
|
| (78472) | |
Re: What was the point of this exercise? (wasRe: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade) |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Apr 25 18:55:09 2005, in response to Re: What was the point of this exercise? (wasRe: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade), posted by Eric B on Sun Apr 24 20:36:40 2005. ...and you can see that it worked! ☺ |
|
|
| (78478) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Apr 25 19:01:39 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by tonyIND on Mon Apr 25 02:13:31 2005. The KK was to replace the #14, but by the time it was actually used; it was routed up 6th Av. (and to avoid confusion; they called the old #14 "JJ" the year before the change, since all reoutes were lettered at that time)."MM" was what was to fill in during the middays, when the KK and M (Metro-Chambers) didn't run. This too actually ran as "KK" with a few post-AM rush hour layups to Metro. Don;t know why they didn;t run it a a full fledged service (especially when they got rid of the MJ el the following year!) |
|
|
| (78507) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 25 20:12:25 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by Eric B on Mon Apr 25 19:01:39 2005. Actually, the MM would have been so much more useful had they actually run that up 6th Ave middays. The J, JJ, or QJ could have handled the Nassau line by itself and even more useful than it was on the Brighton or West End.Even today the M is almost useless terminating at Chambers St. It should be combined with the V. The V terminates needlessly on the Lower East Side, the M terminates needlessly downtown at Chambers St. Connect the two ends of those two lines, and you would have a useful service. |
|
|
| (78525) | |
Some new ideas for ideal service |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Apr 25 20:57:31 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 25 20:12:25 2005. Once again; I'm waiting for 72/2nd for that. The V should go to Church Av.A new set of "build" ideas I'm thinking up now; is to connect 2nd Av. to Court St. (move the museum); connect that lime to the southbound ramp from Jay St. to Bergen upper level (with a diamond crossover so the lower level (exp.) could be accessed as well), and then the V would move completely over to 2nd. Av., but keeping both terminals (Continental, Church). This would free up space on th Av. for full time full fledged K service to 72/2. Nights; perhaps the J could run there instead, (and turn Nassau into a shuttle), since there are more riders coming from the J than from the M. It would still help. We need some service up there all times to cut travel time and eliminate having to wait for the F, often to connect from another line. The Full length 2nd Av. line could then go to Euclid, and a new Cranberry-Dekalb connection (where the Rutgers connection would have been) would allow the C access to the BMT South. Another new idea I never thought of before. The Franklin-Fulton connection was considered and rejected because of disruption to the neighborhood (would have to cut through blocks). But now that they are seriously talking about Airtrain conversion on Atlantic Av.; if they are going to do that type of work there; then they could at the same time build a connection from there to the franklin. So in the space where the two tracks from Botanic Gardens merge into one and start to go up the ramp; a new tunnel would branch off, with a new underground Park Place station. The above station and line to Fulton would be retained as a single station shuttle for a shortcut for those heading east on the Fulton line. It could perhaps then use some sort of single car LRV type vehicle. The new subway would simply continue under the existing right of way, until it turns off onto Atlantic.The corner of Franklin and Atlantic is some indistrial type place that seems to be owned by the MTA anywa (I see MTA trucks there). That is all that would be disturbed by construction. Then; it would run next to the Airtrain line, and then we could perhaps connect it at the old Ashland Pl. bellmouths (built for the Fulton El. Now; the Brighton would have express-local service extended down to Atlantic, (no more need to cross over there) with the express taking a more direct route (like Northern Blvd. or the unused exp. between 7th Av. and Church); even though the exress would have its own station at 7th Av. not served by the local. The local coming out of Ashland Pl. would then feed directly into the current Dekalb-bound track; while the express, to avoid merging there; would have to be fed straight into the tunnel bound track. But then we could build a crossover to the Bypass right near Dekalb; where the Brighton-tunnel and bypass tracks are level and adjacent (curtain wall would have to be removed) If the Q moved to the new local track; it would still be the full time local; but this would now justify putting the D back on the Brighton as the express. When express service is not needed; it wuld just erminate at Prospect Park in the middle (like the J shuttles have been doing; but now there would be no other services on those tracks). I would then have the C run with the Q local as a rush hour special; and then it would resume as the Concourse local. (I would now share cars and shop with the D, instead of the A). The B would become WashHts-West End once again, of course). You could also make the M into a rush hour special express (like pre-Chrystie), and the Brighton would be set up just like Queen Blvd. used to be; with two expresses and two locals; one Manh. trunk line each, with no crossing. They might not need that much service though, but this would not "fix" the entire system back to the original IND and Chrystie patterns; but add a lot too, and maintain the modern simplicity (Brighton exp. is always exp when it runs; etc). I always envied the Queen Blvd. system, and wished we had 8th Av. service; the one "missing" trunk line from the Brighton. I wish whoever makes those MTA fantasy maps would do this one! (this plan would also go along with my old ideas of extending the N up 2nd Av. as well, and it becoming the full time Bway express; and the Q taking over Astoria. It could then be local weekends and tunnel nights; since the Brighton would still have access to the D to cross the bridge at all times). |
|
|
| (78547) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Apr 25 21:57:02 2005, in response to Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by Eric B on Mon Apr 25 18:54:33 2005. I believe the radios started in the 1970s, well after the IND invaded the Culver. As to the control center, I believe that started later also. Remember towers? ;-) |
|
|
| (78564) | |
Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Mon Apr 25 22:49:55 2005, in response to Re: Photos of Stillwell Terminal's new facade, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Apr 21 09:43:10 2005. To YOU its not...But..the WEST END is USED by an IND ESTABLISHED ROUTE>[D 6TH AVE EXPRESS]... The Culver has been a IND route since 1954... |
|
|
| (78602) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Tue Apr 26 02:08:37 2005, in response to Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by Eric B on Mon Apr 25 18:54:33 2005. The radios were introduced on the IRT around 1968, and came to the"B" division in the early 1970s. I wouldn't read too much into the culver line being assigned the B-1 channel. Since all of the nearby radio infrastructure was on B-1, to put it on B-2 would have required installing separate repeaters. Likewise, Flushing was always on B-1, not A. |
|
|
| (78843) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Tue Apr 26 17:58:43 2005, in response to Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by Jeff H. on Tue Apr 26 02:08:37 2005. I figured it had something to do with the infrastructure. I assumed it was already in place when the conversion was made. But I guess your explanation of repeaters on nearby lines makes sense. And once again; it would have to switch over at some point going out anyway. (Plus the phone system, as I mentioned) |
|
|
| (79603) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by #7 Flushing on Thu Apr 28 10:36:36 2005, in response to Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by Eric B on Thu Apr 21 18:11:10 2005. |
|
|
| (79607) | |
Re: Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT |
|
|
Posted by #7 Flushing on Thu Apr 28 10:43:27 2005, in response to Different ways of reckoning IND and BMT, posted by Eric B on Thu Apr 21 18:11:10 2005. Even Hagstrom maps...But it was then [2001] that they did away with the old handdrawn maps, and replaced them with the new ADC style computer drawn maps, which use a line similar to the old IND line (with short dashes) for all subway lines.Yes, Hagstrom doesn't indicate the subway divisions anymore. All subways are shown by a bulleted cyan line (PATH in magenta). To use "new ADC style" maps is quite logical, since Hagstrom and ADC are both owned by Langenscheidt Publishing Group. |
|
|
| (86279) | |
Re: Some new ideas for ideal service |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Tue May 17 23:59:38 2005, in response to Some new ideas for ideal service, posted by Eric B on Mon Apr 25 20:57:31 2005. Er, gimme a week or 2...
|
|
|
| (86604) | |
Re: Some new ideas for ideal service |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu May 19 10:03:35 2005, in response to Re: Some new ideas for ideal service, posted by Broadway Junction on Tue May 17 23:59:38 2005. Oh Great!Just a couple of notes: I would put a station on the new Q (Atlantic) around Washington Av. (remember, this is built as part of an Airtrain extension via Atlantic; so you'll have to show that too). With the K on Myrtle, the M would become a rush hour only special, and perhaps peak exp. on Bway. My latest idea (as I added on the "3.0" thread) has a new 6th Av. service from Northern Blvd/41st. via 63rd (F would go back to 53rd), and cross over at Jay to go to Lefferts (All A's would go to Rockaways) Why does the G turn a deeper green? Why are the 2&3 bullets blank in the river? Was this from another project you were doing? |
|
|
| (87263) | |
Re: Some new ideas for ideal service |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Fri May 20 19:46:12 2005, in response to Re: Some new ideas for ideal service, posted by Eric B on Thu May 19 10:03:35 2005. Why does the G turn a deeper green?Why are the 2&3 bullets blank in the river? Was this from another project you were doing? The map on the MTA's site is of terrible quality and difficult to work with, especially the green of the G and the brown of the J/M/Z. I basically have to redraw much of the map, tracing over the existing lines. My latest idea (as I added on the "3.0" thread) has a new 6th Av. service from Northern Blvd/41st. via 63rd (F would go back to 53rd), and cross over at Jay to go to Lefferts (All A's would go to Rockaways) Then what serves the Culver? |
|
|
| (87272) | |
Re: Some new ideas for ideal service |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Fri May 20 20:16:45 2005, in response to Re: Some new ideas for ideal service, posted by Broadway Junction on Fri May 20 19:46:12 2005. Oops, I misread your statement. The new service would go to Lefferts.What letter do you wanna give it? |
|
|
| (87772) | |
Re: Some new ideas for ideal service |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun May 22 14:35:40 2005, in response to Re: Some new ideas for ideal service, posted by Broadway Junction on Fri May 20 20:16:45 2005. I guess H, since that is what most who say the two services whould be distingushed should go. (There are actually codes for the H to go up 6th!) Perhaps some rush hour peak specials would start at 179th (forgot to adress the Hillside exp) like the E's now do. |
|
|
| (87778) | |
Re: Some new ideas for ideal service |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Sun May 22 15:26:39 2005, in response to Re: Some new ideas for ideal service, posted by Eric B on Sun May 22 14:35:40 2005. OK but then what would be used for the Rock Park shuttle? Isn't that still technically the H? |
|
|
| (87779) | |
Re: Some new ideas for ideal service |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sun May 22 15:31:02 2005, in response to Re: Some new ideas for ideal service, posted by Broadway Junction on Sun May 22 15:26:39 2005. Internally, the Rock park shuttle is known as the H. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
